Calvin Or Jesus ? False Distinction

1. Rippon, I'm a five-point convinced Calvinist, whose dependence on the Doctrines of Grace is the Holy Scriptures.

2. Sure the writings of Calvin have helped many along the way in thinking about the Doctrines of Grace, but I would not say that well-bred Calvinists think that they are dependent on Calvin for the Doctrines of Grace. They're dependent on the Scriptures.

3. But I would add this one thing: Though the protest was seminal in Arminius, it's fair to say that it's the Remonstrants and their tenets that got all of this started. But I'm not sure that I cannot say that I've seen the hand of God in all of this.

 

Thanks for the clarification tip. Let me try to put it in a more positive light: I've seen the hand of God even among dissenters, because of what eventually came about. I tried. :saint:

 

As I understand it, then, these men felt the spirit of Calvinism spoke to them through scripture. Would that be fair? Or was it the Spirit of God that spoke to them through Calvinism? It's like the quandry today among Catholics -- does the Pope and tradition speak for God or does God speak through the Pope and tradition. As we all know, neither!

Let me say this -- Calvinism/Lutheranism/Reform were based on the foundation of Christ built upon by men of near-term Catholic persuasion and not all the "house" was "swept" at one time. For instance, baptism and communion remained similar in practice and in rationale which led to the continued notion that infants had original sin guilt and that communion was the administration of grace. The true church (there are Calvinists among us) has since moved beyond these notions by actually admitting what Luther said we should -- scripture alone.

So as to these earlier "witnesses" -- it was the best revelation they had at the time. What did the schools teach? What was the "buzz?" What were the "heresies" being fended off?

I have a very engaging book you both ought to read* called "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin. It tells about these "stepchildren" of the Reform Movement, those who broke away on issues like infant baptism, communion, etc. -- issues of scripture vs. "tradition."

skypair

*On Zolaboard a few years ago, we discussed it chapter-by-chapter. It was that interesting!

 

Your kidding right...

 

Why are you a Verduinian. You should follow Christ not men.

I am, of course, just kidding. Thought it would illustrate the original point of this thread.

 

Point taken. :thumbs: Still, we all like good history, right? I've read Eusibius recently and Gibbon earlier. This offering is more interesting at the least.

skypair

 

I'm actually in agreement with Rippon *gasp*

The converse is also true. I get tired of hearing how I'm sovereign over God...how I serve another "god", etc. I wish we all would leave the ad hominems out of debating once and for all.

 

I agree. There is no reason, unless one is cleary given, to attack the character or put into the question the faith of those with whom we disagree. Sometimes we are called Calvinists, and that is ok. Sometimes I refer to "the other side" of the issue as evangelical arminians. By that term I mean to recognize there genuine Christian spirit.

Let me quote an old preacher for both the "arminian" type here, and the calvinist. Tell me if you hate such a statement. For me, my heart rejoices in it:

"Long my imprisoned spirit lay
fast bound in sin and nature's night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I awoke; the dungeon flamed with light;

My chains fell off; my heart was free
I rose, went forth, and followed thee."


Now, I will share who the author is in awhile (no googling!)

What say ye?